4.  The applicants were born in 1949, 1951, 1976, 1977, 1984, 1993, 2003 and 1981 respectively and live in Yerevan.
5.  Mr Sisak Danielyan, Ms Kima Danielyan, Mr Andranik Danielyan, Ms Naira Danielyan, Ms Seda Danielyan and Ms Sona Danielyan jointly owned a house measuring 130 sq. m. situated at 11 Byuzand Street, Yerevan. The applicants alleged that Ms Meri Danielyan and Ms Kristine Mnatsakanyan, as members of their family, enjoyed a right of use in respect of this house, while the Government contested this allegation and claimed that they did not enjoy the right of use in respect of the house and simply had the right to live in it.
6.  On 1 August 2002 the Government adopted Decree no. 1151-N, approving the expropriation zones of the immovable property (plots of land, buildings and constructions) situated within the administrative boundaries of the Central District of Yerevan to be taken for the needs of the State for the purpose of carrying out construction projects, covering a total area of 345,000 sq. m. Byuzand Street was listed as one of the streets falling within such expropriation zones.
7.  On 17 June 2004 the Government adopted Decree no. 909-N, contracting out the construction of one of the sections of Byuzand Street – which was to be renamed as Main Avenue – to a private company, Glendale Hills CJSC.
8.  On 28 July 2004 Glendale Hills CJSC and the Yerevan Mayor’s Office signed an agreement which, inter alia, authorised the former to negotiate directly with the owners of the property subject to expropriation and, should such negotiations fail, to institute court proceedings on behalf of the State, seeking forced expropriation of such property.
9.  It appears that Glendale Hills CJSC attempted to organise a measuring and valuation of the applicants’ house in order to offer them compensation for the purposes of expropriation, unsuccessfully, since the applicants created obstacles.
10.  On 10 March 2005 Glendale Hills CJSC instituted proceedings on behalf of the State against all the applicants except one (Ms Kristine Mnatsakanyan), seeking to oblige them to allow a valuation of their house and sign an agreement on taking of their property for State needs based on the results of such valuation, and to evict them.
11.  On 15 March 2005 all the applicants except one (Ms Meri Danielyan) lodged a counter-claim in which they contested the constitutionality of Government Decree no. 1151-N. They submitted, inter alia, that this Decree contradicted Article 28 of the Constitution, according to which property could be expropriated only through the adoption of a law concerning the property in question. They further submitted that the Government was not authorised under the same Article to decide on the expropriation of property.
12.  On the same date the Kentron and Nork-Marash District Court of Yerevan granted the claim of Glendale Hills CJSC, ordering that the defendants be evicted through payment of compensation. The amount of compensation was to be estimated according to the market value following the relevant valuation. The District Court also ordered that they pay court fees in the amount of 4,000 Armenian drams (AMD). It appears that the District Court refused to admit the applicants’ counter-claim on the ground that it was not competent to decide upon the constitutionality of Government Decree no. 1151-N.
13.  On 29 March 2005 the defendant applicants lodged an appeal.
14.  It appears that on 18 April 2005 Orran Ltd real estate company carried out a valuation of the house in question, which was valued at the Armenian dram equivalent of USD 82,600.
15.  On 21 April 2005 the Court of Appeal granted the claim of Glendale Hills CJSC. The Court of Appeal found that the defendants were obliged to give up their ownership through payment of compensation and decided to terminate their ownership by awarding them the Armenian dram equivalent of USD 82,600.
16.  On 5 May 2005 the seven applicants in question lodged an appeal on points of law. On 13 May 2005 they filed additional submissions to their appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the deprivation of their property was in violation of Article 28 of the Constitution.
17.  On 27 May 2005 the Court of Cassation dismissed the applicants’ appeal.